Education Action Zones

Baroness Blatch: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the Written Answer by the Lord Bach on 11 November 1999 (WA 196-198) regarding evaluation reports on Education Action Zones, whether they will indicate what progress has been made in the publication of such reports.

Baroness Blackstone: We intend to publish a progress report in the next six months.

Education Action Zones

Baroness Blatch: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the Written Answer by the Lord Bach on 11 November 1999 (WA 196-198) regarding a statement of private sector contributors to each Education Action Zone, whether they will indicate what progress has been made in providing such a statement. [HL
	 Question number missing in Hansard, possibly truncated question.

Baroness Blackstone: Details of private sector donations are contained within the annual audited accounts for each zone. These are laid in the Libraries of Parliament by the National Audit Office.

Millennium Dome

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	On what basis the moneys promised to the Millennium Dome company by commercial sponsors have not yet been paid in full.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: The New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC) has advised that, under the terms of the contractual arrangements with sponsors, the following payments are outstanding or due as indicated:
	
		
			   
			 Tesco £500,000--was due for payment on 1 March but withheld while issues raised by Tesco were being resolved in discussion with NMEC. NMEC considers that these issues have now been resolved. 
			 L'Oreal £365,322--due on contract signature. Advised by NMEC to be imminent with no outstanding issues. 
			 BskyB £500,000 payment due in October 2000. £500,000 payment due in December 2000. 
			 Mars £250,000 payment due in December 2000. 
			 Coca Cola £250,000 payment due in December 2000. 
			 BA £100,000 payment due in December 2000.

Millennium Dome

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Why the Millennium Dome was advanced a further £43 million from the funds of the Millennium Commission on 3 August; and
	Whether they consider that the sum of £43 million advanced to the Millennium Dome on 3 August was a grant or a loan; and what were the terms express or implied under which the money was advanced; and
	What undertakings were given to the Millennium Commission by Lord Falconer of Thoroton and the Government as a condition of the grant of £47 million being made from Lottery funds to the Millennium Dome in August.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The Millennium Commission does not have the statutory powers to make loans and has never offered loans to the New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC). Grant made to NMEC will be repayable from any operational surplus or asset disposal achieved after the organisation has met its other contractual liabilities.
	On 3 August, in light of the £53 million receipt from the then expected sale of the Dome to Dome Europe plc, the Millennium Commission announced a grant of up to £43 million to the New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC). In doing so, the commission allowed NMEC to realise the potential of the funds due from the sale of the Dome in order to allow the Dome to continue trading, and to facilitate the deal with Dome Europe. The grant to NMEC was awarded subject to a number of conditions, including that the income from the sale would be given directly to the Millennium Commission; that there would be continued regular and detailed reviews of NMEC's financial position; and that the management team would be strengthened.
	On 13 September, the Millennium Commission made a further grant of £47 million to allow NMEC to continue operating the Dome to the end of the year and to deal with the company's specified expected liabilities. NMEC's new executive chairman has been investigating the scope of possible further liabilities, but the board is confident that the company can operate the Dome until the end of the year and achieve solvent liquidation thereafter, within the level of Lottery grant available.

Millennium Dome

Lord Luke: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Why the Millennium Dome was advanced a further £47 million from the funds of the Millennium Commission on 5 September; and
	Whether they consider that the sum of £47 million advanced to the Millennium Dome on 5 September was a grant or a loan; and what were the terms express or implied under which the money was advanced.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The Millennium Commission does not have the statutory powers to make loans and has never offered loans to the New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC). Grant made to NMEC will be repayable from any operational surplus or asset disposal achieved after the organisation has met its other contractual liabilities.
	On 5 September, the Millennium Commission announced that it had offered to the New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC) a grant of up to £47 million in order to facilitate the deal with Dome Europe. The Millennium Commission's decision was based on the findings of PricewaterhouseCoopers' independent analysis of NMEC's financial situation. This grant offer fell away when Dome Europe decided not to pursue its bid, as the purpose of grant could not be achieved.
	On 13 September the Millennium Commission made a further grant of £47 million to allow NMEC to continue operating the Dome to the end of the year and to deal with the company's specified expected liabilities. In doing so, the commission sought assurances that arrangements are introduced to ensure that contingencies and provisions in the budget are used only as essential and with the commission's prior consent, and action plans are developed for managing and mitigating the risks identified; that NMEC's management capacity is significantly stregthened, and NMEC attends regular monitoring meetings with the Millennium Commission. NMEC's new executive chairman has been investigating the scope of possible future liabilities, but the board is confident that the company can operate the Dome until the end of the year and achieve solvent liquidation thereafter, within the level of Lottery grant available.

Nandrolone

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the Written Answer by the Lord McIntosh of Haringey on 27 July (WA 69), when they will publish their response to the United Kingdom Sport Report on Nandrolone which was published in January.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: We are waiting for UK Sport to report on the developments that have taken place since the publication of the original report in January. The Nandrolone Committee, established by UK Sport under the chairmanship of Professor V H T James, has continued to receive further information and decisions of hearings as they have become available. UK Sport has also been working with the food supplement industry on the issues highlighted in the report and met with the leader of the Aberdeen University research team that has been looking at dietary supplements on behalf of UK Athletics.

British Museum South Portico

Baroness Jeger: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Who was responsible for the use of imported French stone in the south portico of the British Museum when Portland stone had been contracted; and what action is being taken and at what cost to rectify this mistake.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The Trustees of the British Museum decided to continue constructing the south portico in French oolitic limestone after receiving the results of petrographic tests, from which they concluded that the French stone was fit for the purpose and that it was within the original specification: "Oolitic limestone--Portland stone from the basebed or similar." That specification and the subsequent use of the French stone were approved by English Heritage, which gave further advice on the steps to be taken to improve the colour match with the surrounding stone by washing away the embedded dust. The washing has now been completed. The trustees remain fully confident that their decision was right.
	The museum has withheld payments under the contract amounting to £300,000. The cost of washing away the dust is estimated at £15,000.

Parliamentary Cost Comparisons

Lord Marlesford: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they will give, separately, the total cost of each House of the United Kingdom Parliament and of the European Parliament, for the most recent year for which figures are available, indicating in respect of each the annual cost per Member.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I refer the noble Lord to the Answer I gave the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, on 5 July (Official Report, WA 133).

Population Breakdown: Ethnic Minorities

Lord Willoughby de Broke: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Based on the most recent census figures, what percentage of the British population consists of ethnic minorities; what is the breakdown in percentage terms between those minorities; and what percentage is the minority of Irish descent.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician, who has been asked to reply.
	Letter to Lord Willoughby de Broke from the National Statistician and Registrar General for England and Wales, Office for National Statistics, Mr Len Cook, dated 23 October 2000.
	As National Statistician and Registrar General for England and Wales I have been asked to reply to your recent question asking, "based on the most recent census figures, what percentage of the British population consists of ethnic minorities, what is the breakdown in percentage terms between those minorities, and what percentage is the minority of Irish descent." [HL4157]
	The 1991 Census is the most recent census and the percentage of the population of Great Britain (54,888,844) from an ethnic minority background was 5.5 per cent. The breakdown in percentage terms between those minorities was:
	
		
			  Percentage 
			 Black Caribbean 0.9 
			 Black African 0.4 
			 Black Other 0.3 
			 Indian 1.5 
			 Pakistani 0.9 
			 Bangladeshi 0.3 
			 Chinese 0.3 
			 Other Asian 0.4 
			 Other 0.5 
		
	
	There was no explicit category of 'Irish' in the ethnic group question in the 1991 Census, although space was allowed for people to describe their ethnic group in their own words if they felt that none of the pre-coded categories applied.
	In statistical material published after the 1991 Census, the numbers of people 'born in Ireland' were presented as a proxy for data on 'Irish' as an ethnic group. The percentage of persons who stated they were born in Ireland in response to the Country of Birth question was 1.5 per cent. This includes those born in the Republic of Ireland and in Northern Ireland.
	The above figures were calculated from data published in Table 6 of the 1991 Census Report for Great Britain Part 1, laid before Parliament in 1993. This report is available from the House of Commons Library.

Bovine Material in Vaccine Manufacture

Lord Woolmer of Leeds: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they have any information concerning the use of bovine material in the manufacture of vaccines.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: European guidelines issued in 1999 made clear that the manufacturing process for medicinal products should not use bovine materials from countries in which there are known cases of Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy. The first guidance on this subject was issued by the Committee on Safety of Medicines in 1989. From 1989 onwards, the Medicines Control Agency sought and received assurances from drug companies that they were implementing this guidance and subsequent guidance produced at a European level on a phased basis.
	On the advice of the MCA, I informed the House on 4 May 2000 that the 1989 guidelines obliged all pharmaceutical companies to source bovine material from outside the United Kingdom. I am now advised by the MCA that these 1989 guidelines did not have the full force of law and that they applied to injectable medicines and medicines applied to the eyes or open wounds. However, the 1999 guidelines do apply to bovine materials and pharmaceuticals generally. From March 2001, these guidelines, which at present are not legally binding, will have the full force of the law.
	I also informed the House on 4 May 2000 that vaccines that use bovine material in the manufacturing process manufactured since March 1989 had used bovine material from non-UK sources and that the MCA had established that the latest date that vaccines manufactured before the guidelines came into force could have been used was November 1993. On 28 March 2000, my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Public Health informed Parliament on the advice of the MCA that from April 1989 no bovine materials sourced in the United Kingdom were introduced as an element of the manufacturing process for vaccines produced at that time. In particular, she told the other place on the advice of the MCA that all vaccines manufactured by Wellcome after 1989 used bovine material from New Zealand. She also informed the other place on 19 October 1999 on the advice of the MCA that since 1993 all vaccines in use were manufactured without UK-sourced bovine material. I have now been advised that the advice from the MCA that formed the basis of these statements was incorrect. The MCA was provided with information by manufacturers.
	The MCA advised Ministers last week that in the case of the Wellcome oral polio vaccine, the assurances given by the company have proved inaccurate. This oral polio vaccine was originally produced by Wellcome. Part of Wellcome's vaccine business was transferred over to Medeva in 1991. Part of the oral polio vaccine was manufactured in 1985 using growth medium containing foetal calf serum of UK bovine origin, and this element continued to be used in the production process after 1989.
	This oral polio vaccine continued to be used up until 2000, in specific breach of the 1999 guidance. The Department of Health has therefore recalled this oral polio vaccine manufactured by Medeva (supplied by Medeva under the brand name Evans).
	The MCA has carried out a risk assessment and people who have received this oral polio vaccine in the past can be advised that the breach is of guidance which has been formulated on a precautionary basis; under the European guidelines. Foetal calf serum is in category IV (no detectable infectivity); the processes used in manufacturing are designed to remove all but a remote trace of unwanted proteins such as foetal calf serum. The MCA, taking all these points together, have advised that any risk associated with this Medeva oral polio vaccine is incalculably small.
	My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Public Health asked the CSM in March to produce a comprehensive assessment of BSE-related issues in vaccines. The Government are committed to publishing the assesssment. In the light of the new information, we are also reviewing the advice given to Ministers on this issue to ensure that all the information given to Parliament is correct.

Chief Dental Officers: Support Staff

Lord Colwyn: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	How many full time senior dental officers, dental officers and regional dental officers assisted the previous three Chief Dental Officers (Dr Robin Wild, Mr Brian Mouatt and Professor Martin Downer); and how many full-time dental officers will be available to assist the new Chief Dental Officer, Dame Margaret Seward.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Mr Robin Wild is currently supported by two full-time senior dental officers, as well as a part-time dental adviser in each regional office of the National Health Service Executive and a number of administrative staff. Dame Margaret Seward will succeed Mr Wild on 1 November and will inherit the current staff complement. I regret that information is no longer available about the staffing arrangements under previous Chief Dental Officers.

Housing Benefit: Backdating

Lord Blackwell: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether the recent announcement of regulations to restrict the backdating of housing benefit to three months is consistent with the assurances given by the Baroness Hollis of Heigham on 6 April 1998 (H.L. Deb., cols. 546-547) in withdrawing the proposed clause 72 of the Social Security Bill.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The intended changes to the backdating rules are consistent with our aims to improve the structure and administration of housing benefit. These proposals have been now considered by the Social Security Advisory Committee (SSAC), and we expect to receive their report to the Secretary of State shortly. We have also consulted the local authority associations (LAAs) on these proposals.
	We will consider the responses from the LAA consultation and points raised in SSAC's report very carefully and will take these into account along with other representations made.

Working Time Directive: Extension to Excluded Sectors

Lord Berkeley: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What are the regulations, and the dates on which they come into effect, in the European Union's Working Time Directive in respect of: (a) railway workers; (b) self-employed road freight transport drivers; (c) other road freight transport drivers; (d) public service vehicle drivers; (e) marine operatives; and (f) port operatives.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: Directive 2000/34/EC was published in the Official Journal of the European Union on 1 August 2000. It extends the provisions of the existing Working Time Directive in full to non-mobile workers in the previously excluded sectors (air, rail, road, sea, inland waterway and lake transport, sea fishing, other work at sea--mainly the offshore oil and gas industry--and doctors in training).
	For mobile workers, the amending directive provides an entitlement to paid annual leave, a 48-hour working week and health checks for night workers. Member states have until 1 August 2003 (1 August 2004 for junior doctors) to implement the directive. Industry representatives within these sectors will be consulted on proposals to implement the directive in due course.
	Negotiations for a separate road transport directive, covering breaks and rest periods for mobile workers, are continuing within the transport working group. At this stage we are unable to say when this proposal is likely to be agreed, or when it is likely to be implemented into UK legislation.

House of Lords Office Accommodation

Lord Dubs: asked the Chairman of Committees:
	What discussions have taken place with the House of Commons authorities regarding the return to the House of Lords of certain Commons office accommodation in the light of the extra space that will be available at Portcullis House.

Lord Boston of Faversham: There have been no such discussions. I wrote to the Speaker of the House of Commons on 28 July to draw to her attention the views of Members of this House, and to inform her that Black Rod had been instructed to obtain comparative information on the accommodation available to the two Houses. This information is now to hand, and the Administration and Works Sub-Committee and the Offices Committee will use it to help them reach a decision on how to proceed.

Refreshment Department: EPOS System

Lord Dubs: asked the Chairman of Committees:
	What was the cost of installing the Refreshment Department's new computerised billing system; what benefits were supposed to be achieved; and what assessment he has made of the delays that have resulted.

Lord Boston of Faversham: The cost to date of installing the new EPOS (electronic point of sale) system in the Refreshment Department is £60,846. A further £20,000 will be spent on an associated stock control system. The introduction of the system in the Refreshment Department follows a recommendation by the National Audit Office. EPOS systems are, and have been for some time, standard in the retail and catering industries and enable accounting procedures to be improved while delivering more accurate information to management on sales and stock control. The staff of the Refreshment Department have put a great deal of effort into ensuring the smooth roll-out of the system in the department's eight outlets. The roll-out is now complete and, while the introduction of a major new system of this kind is bound to lead to teething problems, I understand that, with the temporary exception of the Home Room, no significant delays to customers have been identified. The problems in the Home Room have now been resolved.

Tuffin Ferraby and Taylor: Palace of Westminster Survey

Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe: asked the Chairman of Committees:
	When Tuffin Ferraby and Taylor were appointed to survey the Houses of Parliament; how and by whom the appointment was made; what is the total cost; and whether he will give a breakdown of the costs between remuneration and estimated expenses; and
	What was the remit given to Tuffin Ferraby and Taylor; and how many of their staff will be employed over what period of time.

Lord Boston of Faversham: Following competitive tendering, Tuffin Ferraby and Taylor were appointed in the summer of 2000 by the Parliamentary Works Directorate to carry out septennial condition surveys of the Palace. The cost of the commission is £69,460. There are no additional expenses. The work will take three to four surveyors and their assistants four months.

Tuffin Ferraby and Taylor: Palace of Westminster Survey

Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe: asked the Chairman of Committees:
	What guidance has been given to the staff of Tuffin Ferraby and Taylor on answering questions from Members of the House.

Lord Boston of Faversham: They have been told to answer any questions from Members as fully as possible.

Tuffin Ferraby and Taylor: Palace of Westminster Survey

Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe: asked the Chairman of Committees:
	What work has been undertaken previously for the Houses of Parliament by Tuffin Ferraby and Taylor; and what were the dates and cost of this.

Lord Boston of Faversham: This is the first commission for the Parliamentary Works Directorate carried out by Tuffin Ferraby and Taylor.

Tuffin Ferraby and Taylor: Palace of Westminster Survey

Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe: asked the Chairman of Committees:
	When it is anticipated the report of Tuffin Ferraby and Taylor will be completed; to whom it will be submitted; and when it will be available to Members of the House of Lords.

Lord Boston of Faversham: The results of the survey will be submitted to the Director of Parliamentary Works in phases between October 2000 and the new year for the use of the Works Directorate in preparing the 10-year rolling programme.

Lorry Drivers' Hours

Lord Berkeley: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether a self-employed lorry driver who spent four hours loading his lorry and then nine hours driving (with a mid-shift break) would:
	(a) be operating within the drivers' hours regulations; and
	(b) if exempt from the Working Time Directive be capable of driving a heavy goods vehicle safely at the end of a 13-hour shift.

Lord Whitty: A self-employed driver of a lorry over 3.5 tonnes would be subject to the European Union drivers' hours rules. Under these rules, a driver would normally be allowed to drive up to nine hours a day but this can be increased to 10 hours twice a week. Drivers are also required to take a daily rest of normally 11 hours but this can be reduced to nine hours not more than three times a week. The effect of this is to limit the driver's working day--driving plus other work--to a maximum of 13 hours or 15 hours three times a week. But a driver working a 15-hour day would be required to compensate for the reduction in his daily rest period by taking an equivalent period of rest before the end of the following week.

Train Drivers' Hours

Lord Berkeley: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether a train driver would be permitted under current regulations to drive for 13 hours with only a mid-shift break.

Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: The Railway (Safety Critical Work) Regulations 1994 require train operating companies (TOCs) to ensure that train drivers do not work for such a period that could cause fatigue and put safety at risk. Any changes to existing limits on working times would require a risk assessment to be carried out by the train operating company. The Health and Safety Executive also makes routine inspections to ensure TOCs' compliance with the regulations.
	A Railtrack Group Standard specifies the following limits:
	(a) no more than 12 hours to be worked per turn of duty;
	(b) no more than 72 hours to be worked per calendar week (Sunday to Saturday);
	(c) a minimum rest period of 12 hours between booking off from a turn of duty to booking on for the next turn. This may be reduced to eight hours at the weekly shift changeover, in case of staff working a shift pattern which rotates or alternates on a weekly basis;
	(d) no more than 13 turns of duty to be worked in any 14-day period.

Multi-ethnic Britain: Runnymede Trust Report

Baroness Uddin: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	How they will respond to the recommendations of the Parekh Report on the future of multi-ethnic Britain.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: On 11 October 2000, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department launched the report of the Runnymede Trust's Commission on the Future of Multi-ethnic Britain. He said that he welcomed all contributions to the debate about how we promote race equality in this country and many of the recommendations made by the commission; that he was disappointed that the commission appeared grudging in its recognition of what the Government had achieved already; and that he disagreed with the commission's views on Britishness. Specific recommendations addressed to the Government are being considered, and a more detailed response will be given in due course.

Life Sentence Prisoner Releases on Licence

Lord Avebury: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	How many life sentence prisoners were considered for release on licence since the beginning of 2000; and whether they will publish a table showing the applications determined; the number of prisoners among those applications claiming to be innocent and not innocent respectively; and the proportion of each group who were successful in their application.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: The principal consideration in the release of life sentence prisoners whose tariffs have expired is whether the risk of reoffending and of harm to the public has been reduced to an acceptably low level. Denial of guilt is one element relevant to the assessment of risk but it is not a bar to release. Life sentence prisoners who continue to maintain their innocence can be and have been released on licence.
	A separate record of those who maintain their innocence is not held on computer and the information requested is therefore not readily available.

Immigration Appeals Tribunal and Human Rights

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether, and if so how, the Immigration Appeals Tribunal and adjudicators were warned by the Home Office that they would not be empowered to protect the human rights of asylum seekers and would-be immigrants in appeals relating to decisions taken before 2 October.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: A draft of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (Commencement No. 6, Transitional and Consequential Provisions) Order 2000 was sent to the deputy president of the tribunal, who responded on 3 August. The draft made it plain that Section 65 of the 1999 Act was not retrospective. After the order was made, it was given to and discussed informally with two senior members of the tribunal as well as Non Governmental Organisation representatives at an Immigration and Nationality Directorate workshop on 17 September.
	It is a matter for the immigration Appeals Authority as to how information is distributed to individual members of the judiciary.

Immigration Appeals Tribunal and Human Rights

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they will ensure that those who come before the adjudicators of the Immigration Appeal Tribunal, and are prevented by the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (Commencement No. 6, Transitional and Consequential Provisions) Order 2000 from raising human rights relating to decisions taken before 2 October, are informed by the Home Office of their right to raise human rights issues when a decision is made to remove them.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: If someone who has appealed against a decision taken before 2 October believes that his removal would be in breach of his human rights the onus is for them to say so--as would be the case if they wished to claim asylum. They should not wait until the arrangements have been made for their departure. If a human rights claim is made and refused, the applicant will be made aware of his or her appeal rights under the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999.

Immigration Appeals Tribunal and Human Rights

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether the opportunity to raise human rights objections to removal will apply to certified appeals under paragraph 5 of Schedule 2 to the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993 where the adjudicator upholds the certificate, so as to prevent the unsuccessful appellant's summary removal without consideration of human rights objections.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: Yes. The opportunity to raise human rights objections to removal is not affected by the provisions of paragraph 5 of Schedule 2 to the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993.

Immigration Appeals Tribunal and Human Rights

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What are the reasons for the decision to deprive adjudicators and the Immigration Appeal Tribunal of the power to consider human rights issues in appeals against decisions made before 2 October.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: The new appeal provision in the Immigration and Asylum Act 1998 for appeals on the grounds that a decision breaches someone's human rights under Section 6(1) of the Human Rights Act (HRA) 1998 was not made retrospective because the HRA did not come into force until 2 October. Where someone wishes to claim such a breach, the Government believe it right that the Secretary of State should have the opportunity to consider that claim before it is the subject of an appeal.

Human Rights: Protocol No 12

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the Written Answer by Lord Bassam of Brighton on 11 October (WA 37), whether they consider the text of Article 26 of the United Nations Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to have the defects they discern in the text of Protocol 12 to the European Convention on Human Rights.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: Our difficulties in accepting Protocol 12 are not related to Article 26 of the Covenant. A number of other states, including France, Germany, Spain and Sweden, did not vote for adoption of this text.

Human Rights: Protocol No 12

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the Written Answer by the Lord Bassam of Brighton on 11 October (WA 37), what is the significance of the fact that Protocol 12 to the European Convention on Human Rights does not make clear whether "rights set forth by law" include international as well as national law.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: The Government's concern is that the European Court of Human Rights might hold that a right set out in an international agreement, but not incorporated into United Kingdom law is covered by Protocol 12.

Human Rights: Protocol No 12

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the Written Answer by Lord Bassam of Brighton on 11 October (WA 37), whether they consider that the text of the Preamble to Protocol 12 to the European Convention on Human Rights, "Reaffirming that the principle of non-discrimination does not prevent States Parties from taking measures in order to promote full and effective equality, provided that there is an objective and reasonable justification for those measures", is intended to enable Contracting States to take positive measures; and, if not, what is their understanding of the meaning of the Preamble.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: The Preamble does not have the same force as a substantive provision in the Protocol itself.

Human Rights: Protocol No 12

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the Written Answer by the Lord Bassam of Brighton on 11 October (WA 37), in what respects they consider that the text of Protocol 12 does not follow the case law of the European Convention on Human Rights in allowing objective and reasonably justified distinctions.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: Protocol 12 states that the enjoyment of any right set forth by law shall be secured without discrimination on the ground of any status; it does not provide any exception.

Asylum Seekers' Appeal Rights

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Why the United Kingdom Immigration Service is continuing to send to the representatives of asylum seekers standard notifications of removal indicating that the individual concerned has "exhausted all rights of appeal" without making it clear that there is an opportunity to ask the Secretary of State to reconsider on human rights grounds.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: The form in question is a locally produced form, the wording of which has now been amended. However the right of appeal only arises where an allegation is made to the effect that a decision breaches a person's human rights and is made unlawful by Section 6(1) of the Human Rights Act 1998.

UN Peacekeeping Operations: Deployment of UK Forces

Lord Judd: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether the deployment up to brigade level of United Kingdom-based forces in support of United Nations peacekeeping operations, including those in Sierra Leone, will in all circumstances only be at the explicit request of the United Nations made either by the Security Council or by the uniting for peace procedure and that all such deployment will remain accountable to the United Nations whatever the field operational command arrangements.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: The precise terms of any deployment of UK forces in support of UN peacekeeping operations, including the command arrangements, would depend on the circumstances at the time. The final decision on making any deployment would rest with Her Majesty's Government.